.

[kalvano]

JFC, every time I sit down to study today, something else comes up. Of all days, today is the day my downstairs toilet chooses to explode, making me drive 50 fucking miles to the only store around that sells exactly what I need. Yeah, I really feel like bar prep now.

I am having a lousy day too. Think I'll just listen to this one set of lectures and call it quits. I literally couldn't even make it through one lecture all morning, crisis after crisis after crisis. Hope things are OK now at your house

New gasket installed. I hate having plumbing that is always the asterisk on universal kits where it says "fits everything....*but X brand."

Inch of water on my tiles mopped up.

Ready to prep!

Ooohh, Counting Cars!

[Holly Golightly]

At least you have an excuse. I woke up at noon and just sat around for 4 hours.

I went for a run to put off bar prep. So at least that was somewhat productive?

[09042014]

At least you have an excuse. I woke up at noon and just sat around for 4 hours.

I went for a run to put off bar prep. So at least that was somewhat productive?

I just ate portillos, so I say you are WAY ahead of me today.

[Holly Golightly]

At least you have an excuse. I woke up at noon and just sat around for 4 hours.

I went for a run to put off bar prep. So at least that was somewhat productive?

I just ate portillos, so I say you are WAY ahead of me today.

Now I'm trying to watch a couple of videos before the game, because lord knows I will get nothing done after it starts. But I prob won't even complete a single full task for today.

[dsclaw]

I just did the first section of Evidence questions for the MBE, and they were some of the worst questions I have ever seen. Some of them I did not even know what they were asking about, and others they made you make inferences such as returning a wallet is an act which goes to the truthfulness.

[Agoraphobia]

At least you have an excuse. I woke up at noon and just sat around for 4 hours.

I went for a run to put off bar prep. So at least that was somewhat productive?

I just ate portillos, so I say you are WAY ahead of me today.

Now I'm trying to watch a couple of videos before the game, because lord knows I will get nothing done after it starts. But I prob won't even complete a single full task for today.

Same. Speaking of the videos, anyone else having horrible issues with them "skipping"? Driving me crazy.

[jerwood84]

So, It's my understanding that we should be hitting these questions at 1.8 minutes per MBE question. I'm well under that time in all sections except for property which is at a dismal 2.2 minutes. My average on property is 60% after 153 answered questions. I'll take that considering the Nat'l ave is 58 percent (according to this unexplained figure provided by Themis before our courses even started).

I can't possibly take 2.2 minutes on all prop questions and finish on time. Solution, fuck all future interest questions and some very long concurrent ownership questions. If I skip future interests right when I recognize it, I save 2.2 minutes. We generally only have 2-3 future interests on each MBE. If I skip 4 or 5 property questions I have a 25 percent chance of guessing each one correctly. Ok so I go 1/4 on specific questions that eat up time and now I dump extra time cushion on Q's I generally don't struggle with. I think my strategy will work for me.

Curious if you guys have similar approaches.

[09042014]

So, It's my understanding that we should be hitting these questions at 1.8 minutes per MBE question. I'm well under that time in all sections except for property which is at a dismal 2.2 minutes. My average on property is 60% after 153 answered questions. I'll take that considering the Nat'l ave is 58 percent (according to this unexplained figure provided by Themis before our courses even started).

I can't possibly take 2.2 minutes on all prop questions and finish on time. Solution, fuck all future interest questions and some very long concurrent ownership questions. If I skip future interests right when I recognize it, I save 2.2 minutes. We generally only have 2-3 future interests on each MBE. If I skip 4 or 5 property questions I have a 25 percent chance of guessing each one correctly. Ok so I go 1/4 on specific questions that eat up time and now I dump extra time cushion on Q's I generally don't struggle with. I think my strategy will work for me.

Curious if you guys have similar approaches.

If you well under the rest, you can waste time on property.

[Bikeflip]

So, It's my understanding that we should be hitting these questions at 1.8 minutes per MBE question. I'm well under that time in all sections except for property which is at a dismal 2.2 minutes. My average on property is 60% after 153 answered questions. I'll take that considering the Nat'l ave is 58 percent (according to this unexplained figure provided by Themis before our courses even started).

I can't possibly take 2.2 minutes on all prop questions and finish on time. Solution, fuck all future interest questions and some very long concurrent ownership questions. If I skip future interests right when I recognize it, I save 2.2 minutes. We generally only have 2-3 future interests on each MBE. If I skip 4 or 5 property questions I have a 25 percent chance of guessing each one correctly. Ok so I go 1/4 on specific questions that eat up time and now I dump extra time cushion on Q's I generally don't struggle with. I think my strategy will work for me.

Curious if you guys have similar approaches.

If you're under 1.8 min for everything but property you may have enough of a buffer come test day when we're tested on everything at once.

With that said, I haven't figured out what subjects I'm going to sacrifice for my personal Redeker Plan. I should figure that out this week.

A reminder on how to make your your Redeker Plan:



From Themis.

The bolded could be up to 89 questions, per my calculator.

Making a lot of assumptions like Themis' information to us is correct, general trends are indicative of something, past performance predicts future performance, etc, an 89/200 would be a 114 on California's July 2011 exam: http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 201107.pdf

[BarbellDreams]

How are your graded essay responses?

My grader gives me like 1-2 sentences per issue in his response. Wish he gave me a paragraph or something. I kinda get what he is saying, but some stuff is general like "you could have structured this better".

[Bikeflip]

How are your graded essay responses?

My grader gives me like 1-2 sentences per issue in his response. Wish he gave me a paragraph or something. I kinda get what he is saying, but some stuff is general like "you could have structured this better".

Overall, I'm happy with my grader. I get 1-2 sentences per paragraph. Things I did right. Things I did wrong. At the end I get a few paragraphs about her overall impression, strategies, etc. I don't get many open ended statements such as "you could have structured this better." Instead I get things like "To make your statement the particular rule better, mention that party had notice & isn't prejudiced in defending on the merits."

[Bikeflip]

Gies for MBE contracts... he brought a stuffed caterpillar that turns into a stuffed butterfly.

Geis is a rockstar. Probably the best professor I've seen so far (Jeffries being a close second).

God bless that man and his butterfly.

[TheBeard]

Does anyone but me think that my time would be better spent doing practice questions and reading explanations than reading outlines? The outlines are often gibberish to me. Even reviewing the notes and handouts feel like a waste of time. But I really feel like I start to understand more and more by doing practice questions. I will give you an example - the fact that a contract merges into the deed and that you can only sue on the deed, not the contract, post-delivery of the deed. I learned that through practice questions, not the outline or the lecure. Thoughts...?

This is my second time using Themis (failed the Feb 2013 exam), and I have to agree. Last time I spent WAY too much time actually reading, highlighting and annotating all the outlines, and then found I remembered exactly ZERO when it came time for MBE PQs or Practice Essays. This time, I fast-fwd'd thru the lectures, reviewed the Handouts from last time, and I'm focusing heavily on memorizing rule statements. Someone else here mentioned that they are condensing their Handouts into 4-page outlines that they print onto 1-page (by shrinking). Very smart. Wish I'd done that last time.

I'm starting to make flash cards with the rule statement and two or three important points. This is the only way I can memorize all this crap.

[kalvano]

For me, it's working better to use M-W to listen to lectures and read outlines and get new material, and use Thursday, Friday, and Saturday mornings to review and do practice stuff.

Also, I have a weird fear that my essay grader is just trying to make me feel better and that real-life graders will be much harsher.

[missinglink]

Gies for MBE contracts... he brought a stuffed caterpillar that turns into a stuffed butterfly.

Geis is a rockstar. Probably the best professor I've seen so far (Jeffries being a close second).

God bless that man and his butterfly.

Are they using different profs for different programs? I have Guzman for MBE Contracts.

[forza]

Are they using different profs for different programs? I have Guzman for MBE Contracts.

Yep. You're missing out on this action:

[antonious13]

Gies for MBE contracts... he brought a stuffed caterpillar that turns into a stuffed butterfly.

Geis is a rockstar. Probably the best professor I've seen so far (Jeffries being a close second).

God bless that man and his butterfly.

Are they using different profs for different programs? I have Guzman for MBE Contracts.

I guess so. CA here, I also have Guzman.

[Dr. Review]

How are your graded essay responses?

My grader gives me like 1-2 sentences per issue in his response. Wish he gave me a paragraph or something. I kinda get what he is saying, but some stuff is general like "you could have structured this better".

I've been pretty happy with mine. Are you using Robert?

[lsatlsat]

There HAS to be a problem with this Contracts MC question:



4. (Question ID#2708)
In a written contract, a designer agreed to deliver to a buyer 25 described fur coats at $1,000 each F.O.B. the designer's place of business. The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other." The designer placed the coats onboard a carrier on January 30 and properly notified the buyer of the shipment. On February 1 the designer said in a signed writing, "I hereby assign to [a friend] all my rights under the [designer-buyer] contract." The designer did not request and did not get the buyer's consent to this transaction. On February 2 the coats, while in transit, were destroyed in a derailment of the carrier's railroad car.

In an action by the friend against the buyer, the friend probably will recover
A. $25,000, the contract price.
B. the difference between the contract price and the market value of the coats.
C. nothing, because the coats had not been delivered.
D. nothing, because the designer-buyer contract forbade an assignment.
Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. Though the assignment from the designer to the friend was improper, the general rule is that assignments are allowed unless doing so materially increases the duty or right of the obligor or materially reduces the obligor's chances of obtaining performance. Thus, answer choice D is incorrect. While the assignment is a breach of contract, here the question calls for the impact of the destruction of the goods. As an assignee, the friend stands in the same shoes as the signer and can sue for the $25,000 contract price. This result is proper because under the UCC, the FOB ("free on board") shipment contract provision here shifts the risk of loss to the buyer. Answer choice B is incorrect because it contemplates expectancy damages, which are not proper here. Answer C is incorrect because although the coats were not delivered, the risk of loss fell to the buyer, not the seller. [The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.]

Here's what I see:
1) FOB contracts keep the risk of loss with the seller
2) Regardless, the seller breached through assignment! In either case, the seller should bear the risk of loss.

Thanks guys.

[Bustang]

Random semi-crazy study tip:

I've been creating google docs called "contracts review" or "torts review" etc. When it's a review day, I go through the outline and type out the rules/principles I'm not very familiar with three times each on the google drive outline. On the third attempt, I try my best to type it out without looking at the previous entries. After doing this for the entire outline, I take a practice quiz. I go through each question and re-answer it to make sure I understand the rule. Even if I got it right, if I didn't know the rule I write it out 3 times in the google drive doc. If i got it wrong, well - I do more typing.


Seems to be working better than flash cards and honestly doesn't take as much time to do/as you would think. I've been doing the same thing for the graded essays and have scored well.

[JD_done]

There HAS to be a problem with this Contracts MC question:



4. (Question ID#2708)
In a written contract, a designer agreed to deliver to a buyer 25 described fur coats at $1,000 each F.O.B. the designer's place of business. The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other." The designer placed the coats onboard a carrier on January 30 and properly notified the buyer of the shipment. On February 1 the designer said in a signed writing, "I hereby assign to [a friend] all my rights under the [designer-buyer] contract." The designer did not request and did not get the buyer's consent to this transaction. On February 2 the coats, while in transit, were destroyed in a derailment of the carrier's railroad car.

In an action by the friend against the buyer, the friend probably will recover
A. $25,000, the contract price.
B. the difference between the contract price and the market value of the coats.
C. nothing, because the coats had not been delivered.
D. nothing, because the designer-buyer contract forbade an assignment.
Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. Though the assignment from the designer to the friend was improper, the general rule is that assignments are allowed unless doing so materially increases the duty or right of the obligor or materially reduces the obligor's chances of obtaining performance. Thus, answer choice D is incorrect. While the assignment is a breach of contract, here the question calls for the impact of the destruction of the goods. As an assignee, the friend stands in the same shoes as the signer and can sue for the $25,000 contract price. This result is proper because under the UCC, the FOB ("free on board") shipment contract provision here shifts the risk of loss to the buyer. Answer choice B is incorrect because it contemplates expectancy damages, which are not proper here. Answer C is incorrect because although the coats were not delivered, the risk of loss fell to the buyer, not the seller. [The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.]

Here's what I see:
1) FOB contracts keep the risk of loss with the seller
2) Regardless, the seller breached through assignment! In either case, the seller should bear the risk of loss.

Thanks guys.

This is how I understood it (after getting the question wrong). The FOB was at "designers place of business" which means that once it leaves the designer's place of business, the buyer bears the risk of loss. I used to think FOB always meant destination but I was wrong.
The assignment was prohibited by the contract. However, the assignment was still valid. Unless the anti-assignment clause also specifically voids any attempted assignment, it will generally be valid. I assume, the other party can sue the assigning party for breach but in this case there would be no point. The buyer still has to pay the contract price and the designer fully performed (except for the assignment breach). The buyer didn't suffer any injury because of the assignment.

Think this is correct.

[lsatlsat]

This is how I understood it (after getting the question wrong). The FOB was at "designers place of business" which means that once it leaves the designer's place of business, the buyer bears the risk of loss. I used to think FOB always meant destination but I was wrong.
The assignment was prohibited by the contract. However, the assignment was still valid. Unless the anti-assignment clause also specifically voids any attempted assignment, it will generally be valid. I assume, the other party can sue the assigning party for breach but in this case there would be no point. The buyer still has to pay the contract price and the designer fully performed (except for the assignment breach). The buyer didn't suffer any injury because of the assignment.

Think this is correct.

The FOB part makes sense, thank you. I just saw FOB and assumed that it meant destination contract. But the assignment is still a breach, and even the answer explanation calls it a breach. I understand how these assignments are still valid. But concerning risk of loss, I thought a breach clearly puts the risk of loss with the breaching party, regardless of whether the breach is related to the damage, and that this step comes before we look at whether it's a destination or shipment contract. Thanks again!

[JD_done]

This is how I understood it (after getting the question wrong). The FOB was at "designers place of business" which means that once it leaves the designer's place of business, the buyer bears the risk of loss. I used to think FOB always meant destination but I was wrong.
The assignment was prohibited by the contract. However, the assignment was still valid. Unless the anti-assignment clause also specifically voids any attempted assignment, it will generally be valid. I assume, the other party can sue the assigning party for breach but in this case there would be no point. The buyer still has to pay the contract price and the designer fully performed (except for the assignment breach). The buyer didn't suffer any injury because of the assignment.

Think this is correct.

The FOB part makes sense, thank you. I just saw FOB and assumed that it meant destination contract. But the assignment is still a breach, and even the answer explanation calls it a breach. I understand how these assignments are still valid. But concerning risk of loss, I thought a breach clearly puts the risk of loss with the breaching party, regardless of whether the breach is related to the damage, and that this step comes before we look at whether it's a destination or shipment contract. Thanks again!

I understood that a breach shifts the risk to the breaching party only when the breach was delivery of nonconforming goods. I believe that once the designer completed his duties under the contract and only had rights (collection of payment) even though he breached by assigning the right, the UCC doesn't punish him by shifting the risk of loss back to him.

[elysiansmiles]

Are they using different profs for different programs? I have Guzman for MBE Contracts.

Yep. You're missing out on this action:

I am SO excited for contracts now!

[BarbellDreams]

How are your graded essay responses?

My grader gives me like 1-2 sentences per issue in his response. Wish he gave me a paragraph or something. I kinda get what he is saying, but some stuff is general like "you could have structured this better".

I've been pretty happy with mine. Are you using Robert?

You mean my grader's name? I think its Cameron.